The need for more data centers and for those data centers to be larger, more efficient and provide more capacity is growing on a daily basis. Due to increased need and the high cost of building new data center space, it is important to make the most of the available data center space. The industry standard of racking servers in cabinets designed to stack servers vertically has done a lot to ensure that the available cubic space is efficiently utilized, but there are still additional refinements that can be made to further increase the amount of computational power that can be put into a given data center. Despite the use of blade servers and micro clouds, space—and the investment into switching hardware—is not efficiently used due to the server-switch connections, and the physical configuration of hardware in current data centers. In other words, it is not uncommon to have either 1) less than 100% utilization of switch ports, or 2) 100% utilization of switch ports, but less than 100% utilization of the cabinet slots.
Several constraints prevent greater efficiency. For example, the current designs for both cabinets and the rails require that the network cables run vertically. Top-of-rack switches are roughly half as long as servers (they take up only half of the depth of their slot in the cabinet). Current industry practice is to rack all servers from the front of the cabinet (e.g., servers are inserted into the rails from the front of the cabinet and then bolted to the front of the cabinet to stop them from sliding back out). Switches, on the other hand, are racked from the back of the cabinet—presumably because they are short and the goal is to have the back of the switch flush with the backs of the servers—rather than being positioned in the middle of the cabinet where the ports would be unreachable. Once a switch has been racked and the network cabling and power distribution has been run, it can, depending on where in the cabinet the switch has been racked, become difficult or even impossible to pull the switch back out of the rack without also removing the network cables and/or power distribution units mounted behind the switch. Companies are then faced with the decision of mounting switches in the middle of the cabinet (creating severe difficulties when removing/replacing the switch), or placing the switch at the top of the cabinet (above the power distribution units so that it is easier to remove the switch in the event that it needs to be replaced). Placing the switch in the middle of the cabinet, or more specifically vertically in the middle of the servers which are to be connected to the switch means that, on average, the networking cables are one-fourth the aggregate vertical height of the servers connected to a switch plus the length needed to get from the port on the server over to the side of the cabinet and then over from the side of the cabinet to the relevant port on the switch. Placing the switch at the top of the cabinet, generally the preferred positioning because of the increased difficulty in replacing switches mounted in the middle of the cabinet, means that, on average, the networking cables are one-half the height of the cabinet plus the length needed to get from the port on the server over to the side of the cabinet and then over from the side of the cabinet to the relevant port on the switch. The longer cables associated with positioning switches in the top of the cabinet are more expensive and contribute to increased failure rates due to the increased weight, and stress, on the connecting ports. Further, networking cables can take up a significant amount of space and reduce the flow of air through the cabinet (potentially causing the overheating of electronic equipment and premature failure of the hardware) if not managed correctly. As a result, cables are typically run in a tight group up and down one side of the cabinet.
Accordingly, cable management systems taking up two slots, or 2U, are generally placed above the top-of-rack switch to both bear the weight of the cables (thereby reducing the rate of port failure due to unsupported cables), and keep the cables organized. However, this cable management system uses about 4% of the available space in a standard 48-unit cabinet, which is critical space. Placing switches in a position other than the top of the cabinet means that the fiber optics cables running from the top-of-rack switch to the network core are exposed to potential jostling and damage any time a data center tech works on one of the servers positioned above the switch in the cabinet. This can potentially lead to downtime not just for one or two servers, but for all of the servers connected to a given switch.
If one considers a switch, its cable management system, and all of the servers attached to the switch to be a “logical computing unit” or LCU, then the above considerations generally mean that any given LCU is limited to a single cabinet. If the physical space in the cabinet is exhausted before the networking ports on the switch are fully utilized, there is no other option but to either accept less than 100% utilization of the switch ports (and therefore waste some of the capital expenditure involved in purchasing the switch), or downgrade to a less expensive switch that has fewer network ports—leaving one or more units of rack space unused. As such, there is a need for a system and method that allows 100% utilization of switch ports while fully utilizing rack space, without increasing failure rates or increasing downtime due to other considerations (server/switch replacement; overheating; cable jostling; etc.)
A further restriction on the utilization of space in an LCU is the configuration of the switch and port connectors. A normal RJ45 ethernet networking port has a width of about 0.46 inches. The female connector into which an RJ45 port is inserted into requires about 0.55 inches. One unit (U) of cabinet space has a usable width (allowing for mounting hardware) of about 17.3 inches. Stacking switch ports vertically works for a stack of two ports because the top ports are oriented so that the retention clips are on the top of the plug while the bottom ports are oriented so that the retention clips on the bottom plugs are pointing downwards. This means that introducing a third row of ports makes it difficult or even impossible to depress the retention clip holding the cable in place.
Placing 24 switch ports side-by-side along the face of the switch consumes more than 13 of the 17.3 inches of the available horizontal space into which link lights, a bezel, uplink ports, and venting holes for waste heat must also fit.
One attempt at solving this problem is found in U.S. Pat. No. 8,600,208 to Badar et al. The '208 patent seeks to increase the surface area available for switch ports by taking advantage of the space on the front of the switch and angling the back of the switch in a triangular fashion. However, this has several issues. Using the front of the switch for ports introduces cabling difficulties because the copper wires have to be run from the back of the servers to the front of the switch. The utilization of the front of the switch for switch ports interferes with the flow of air through the switch and therefore complicates the cooling of the switch. Further, while the angled face on the back of the switch provides increased surface area for switch ports, it makes the majority of the RJ45 ports inaccessible due to their position deeper inside the cabinet and the limited distance between the servers above and/or below the switch. This makes it difficult to plug and unplug the network cables.
Another attempted solution is taught in U.S. Pat. No. 9,461,422 to Yuen. The '422 patent discloses a micro ethernet connector, but fails to disclose a method of coupling the cable to the circuit board disclosed. Accordingly, a reasonable assumption is to solder the cable to the connector. However, while this may be feasible in high-precision manufacturing environments, it isn't a viable option for use in a data center, where technicians are constantly cutting cords to differing lengths and replacing coupling connectors. Therefore, there is a need for a modular connector that technicians can easily connect to cables and that takes up less space than the current RJ45 connector.
Further, electronic components inside of the switch generate waste heat which must be vented in order to prevent the switch for overheating and prematurely failing. U.S. Patent publication US20160128230A1 to Lam et al. seeks to address the issue of waste heat by angling the top and/or bottom panel of the switch down to meet a slightly smaller back face plate. However, in instances of increased ports and associated components, there will arise a need for better methods to effectively dissipate waste heat.
Accordingly, the present disclosure seeks to solve the above-mentioned problems and others.